Avshalom Binyamin wrote:Not me. White supremacy is incompatible with "Every man and every woman is a star"

Ditto on the male supremacy.

Supremacy exists.

Are you trying to deny that?

People are called to Nuit but many don't make it.

Crowley was Nietzschean. Read the New Comment and weep.

Equality?

From Nuit's perspective the colour of a person's skin or their gender is irrelevant when they take a magical oath. Right?

The question is, why is Thelema Eurocentric?

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

Hold it, what are we actually discussing here? What and who is a "white supremacist"? Are you visualizing an illiterate truck driver from Kentucky who has a whisky addiction, beats his girlfriend, snarls at the readers and listens to Lynnrd Skynnrd at the weekends?

gerry456 wrote:The question is, why is Thelema Eurocentric?

Is it?

Realistically, generally speaking, the stratum of posters on this forum for example, is white and male. We got a few ladies here and there.

Last edited by gerry456 on Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:34 pm, edited 6 times in total.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:What does that even mean? Nuit just Is. We are a part of Her.?

Well, Nuit is beyond 8=3.

Crowley was Nietzschean.

This comment is so reductive as to be nearly empty of meaning. One could equally well say Nietzsche was Schopenhauerian and mean just as little by it.

If you're an ignoramus yes but seeing as I'm assuming you've read the New Comment and the references to Nietzsche therein I wouldn't be bringing Schopenhauerian comparisons into this.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

I know everyone's excited about Trump etc zzzzzz but Magick and Thelema are beyond such trivialities as politics and media games.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

What are you talking about? Nuit is above us and in us. Her naked splendour is the gemmèd azure above. She is infinite space, and the infinite stars thereof, the omnipresent continuity of existence, the blue-lidded daughter of sunset, the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky.

We are all of her, and She is everything and No Thing.

8=3 is a human grade of attainment.

If you're an ignoramus yes...

Nice to see we've already hit the point of calling names.

...but seeing as I'm assuming you've read the New Comment and the references to Nietzsche therein I wouldn't be bringing Schopenhauerian comparisons into this.

Why not? Crowley was influenced by Nietzsche in much the same way that Nietzsche was influenced by Schopenhauer. Just as I wouldn't call Crowley "Neitzschean", I wouldn't call Nietzsche "Schopenhauerian". They were each their own men, philosophers in their own right, who built on the ideas of those whom they admired. Neither were uncritical mouthpieces of another's views.

Now, to head off your next predictable parry at the pass: No, I'm not interested in checking out the fascinating link you have to Los's blog where he uses his typically broad brush to equate Crowley and Nietzsche. Nor am I particularly interested in parsing the words of a few lines in Liber Tzaddi that you believe are a call to Nietzsche the (****) out of all the oddballs and weirdos of society.

Your loop is beginning to repeat itself, gerry/kasper/david/ian/whatever your name is. And given that the name calling has started again, I have to assume we're now on the fast track toward anger, implosion, and deletion of all the threads you've participated in.

Please try to avoid that this time around. It really messes with the flow when one is trying to read through the archives.

Gnosomai, Nietzsche is actually unique amongst philosophers due to his total reevaluation of European philosophy. Anything Socratic and post-Socratic in fact so your attempt to keep on lumping him in with the others is totally missing it. Also, the name-calling is in your head. To realize that, go back and read what I posted. Presumptuous isn't in it.

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[What are you talking about?..

I'm talking about a thread where if i'm not mistaken Jim explained that Nuit is the ultimate identity or attainment.

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[Nuit is above us and in us. Her naked splendour is the gemmèd azure above. She is infinite space, and the infinite stars thereof, the omnipresent continuity of existence, the blue-lidded daughter of sunset, the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky.

We are all of her, and She is everything and No Thing.

8=3 is a human grade of attainment..

As above.

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:

Nor am I particularly interested in parsing the words of a few lines in Liber Tzaddi that you believe are a call to Nietzsche the (****) out of all the oddballs and weirdos of society..

Well yes Tzaddi is Crowley at his most Nietszchean. You want to bring in the "weirdo" issue with Nietzsche? We're talking about an adult man who lived his ficking mother and sister, handed proposals of marriage to various women he secretly admired and when that didn't work out went to live on a mountain by himself which reminds me "He who delights in solitude is either a wild beast or a god."

Los's blog?? O cheers, so that's my sole source of education? Ha!! You honestly think that that's how I learned about AC being Nietzschean? I probably knew that before Los was even born. Everyone knows it. Its blatant in Crowley's writings. I don't know how many times Crowley says "Christians to the lions" in his comment , i'd have to check but quite a bit. He wrote, elsewhere if i'm not mistaken that Nietzsche was "almost an avatar of Thoth".

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

I sense a butt hurt in the force? No one wanted to read the article and have a discussion?

I think it's funny trump is 70 and on Inauguration Day he will be 70 years 7 months and 7 days old. Are you mad when the wise fool on the scene isn't the messiah you imagined? Did you imagine him with purple hair wearing a BLM t-shirt, protesting with double fisted dildos in hand? Sad!!

Should we not rather breed humanity for quality by killing off any tainted stock, as we do with other cattle? And exterminating the vermin which infect it, especially Jews and Protestant Christians? -Crowley in The Law Is for All, p. 37

Mercurius wrote:I sense a butt hurt in the force? No one wanted to read the article and have a discussion?]

Doesn't look like does it?

Maybe try it out on a Chaos Magic forum. This forum is all about Thelema.

Chaos magic memes? Personally, that doesn't interest me.

The alt-right and "the occult"? The Nazis developed out of a trance-medium occult organization and they honoured Viking culture in festivals etc but this frog- god/Trump theory smacks of trying to force triangles into round holes hence............... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

Sorry, didn't see the updated version of this until now (either that, or Tapatalk didn't load the entire post).

gerry456 wrote:Gnosomai, Nietzsche is actually unique amongst philosophers due to his total reevaluation of European philosophy. Anything Socratic and post-Socratic in fact so your attempt to keep on lumping him in with the others is totally missing it.

You're welcome to hold that opinion if it suits you, but you seem to be reading past what I said in order to put Nietzsche up on that pedestal. My comment was in response to you claiming that Crowley is Nietzschean. I was critiquing that bit of reduction by making the analogy "If Crowley can be reduced to Nietzsche, then Nietzsche can be reduced to Schopenhauer," both of which are obvious over-generalizations. Some of Crowley's writing can be seen to have derived from Nietzsche (or Burton, or Eckartshausen, or Swinburn, or Rabelais) in much the same way that some of Nietzsche's can be see to have derived from Schopenhauer (or Wagner, or Hegel, or Kant, or whomever you please, all the way back to Socrates if you like); but some of it most certainly does not. Reducing him with the label "Nietzschean" glosses over this in a most unhelpful way.

I'm talking about a thread where if i'm not mistaken Jim explained that Nuit is the ultimate identity or attainment.

As I've demonstrated above, She is the ultimate, though I might not use the word "identity". I'd have to see the actual wording to know what you (or he) mean by ultimate attainment. I would presume he's speaking of the ultimate unification of the individual with the All which is Not: i.e. the Union of Hadit and Nuit.

Well yes Tzaddi is Crowley at his most Nietszchean.

So you've said. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

He wrote, elsewhere if i'm not mistaken that Nietzsche was "almost an avatar of Thoth".

Yes, in his Confessions. He also wrote that Eckenstein was an Ipsissimus, that Agustus John was a "supreme genus", that Burton was his "hero", etc. etc... None of these do anything to define the man, in toto. They are all notes in the symphony, some louder at times than at others.

Hitting one note over and over doesn't make for very interesting music.

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:You're welcome to hold that opinion if it suits you, but you seem to be reading past what I said in order to put Nietzsche up on that pedestal. My comment was in response to you claiming that Crowley is Nietzschean. I was critiquing that bit of reduction by making the analogy "If Crowley can be reduced to Nietzsche, then Nietzsche can be reduced to Schopenhauer," both of which are obvious over-generalizations. Some of Crowley's writing can be seen to have derived from Nietzsche (or Burton, or Eckartshausen, or Swinburn, or Rabelais) in much the same way that some of Nietzsche's can be see to have derived from Schopenhauer (or Wagner, or Hegel, or Kant, or whomever you please, all the way back to Socrates if you like); but some of it most certainly does not. Reducing him with the label "Nietzschean" glosses over this in a most unhelpful way..

Crowley is .... ok fair enough. The point still stands though, Nietzsche, after his initial study of philosophy, carved out his unique niche as the one who attempted to wipe the slate clean all the way back to pre-Socratic Greece.

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:As I've demonstrated above, She is the ultimate, though I might not use the word "identity". I'd have to see the actual wording to know what you (or he) mean by ultimate attainment. I would presume he's speaking of the ultimate unification of the individual with the All which is Not: i.e. the Union of Hadit and Nuit..

Anyway "seek me only" 1:32 and "to me to me" 1:62 to 1:65 alludes to the Hierophantic task and means work to scale yourself up the sephirothic grades, that was my point.

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:]Well yes Tzaddi is Crowley at his most Nietszchean.

So you've said. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

[.[/quote]

I guess.

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:Yes, in his Confessions. He also wrote that Eckenstein was an Ipsissimus, that Agustus John was a "supreme genus", that Burton was his "hero", etc. etc... None of these do anything to define the man, in toto. They are all notes in the symphony, some louder at times than at others.

Hitting one note over and over doesn't make for very interesting music.

Yeah the statement "Crowley is Nietzschean" is limiting but , as I keep saying, he doesn't repeatedly refer to Eckenstein et al in The Old and New Comment but he does namecheck Nietzsche a fair bit. The Liber Al commentaries is where Thelema is defined. The Confessions were just a general hagiography so y'see this isn't one of mu hobby horses, i'm looking at it in The Liber Al comments. It's there for all to see.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

gerry456 wrote:Anyway "seek me only" 1:32 and "to me to me" 1:62 to 1:65 alludes to the Hierophantic task and means work to scale yourself up the sephirothic grades, that was my point.

Huh... I wouldn't have connected either of those verses to the Hierophantic task or the sephirothic grades. Where do you see that connection?

gerry456 wrote:Yeah the statement "Crowley is Nietzschean" is limiting but , as I keep saying, he doesn't repeatedly refer to Eckenstein et al in The Old and New Comment but he does namecheck Nietzsche a fair bit. The Liber Al commentaries is where Thelema is defined. The Confessions were just a general hagiography so y'see this isn't one of mu hobby horses, i'm looking at it in The Liber Al comments. It's there for all to see.

My copy of the Old and New Comment only namechecks him twice (II.21 & III.57). I'll grant you that in the first of those he specifically says "There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse," but he doesn't extend that viewpoint beyond the verse to the other 219 of the book. Nor did he ever waver in his claim that Aiwass wrote the book, not him.

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[Huh... I wouldn't have connected either of those verses to the Hierophantic task or the sephirothic grades. Where do you see that connection?.

Sorry ,for me, it's blatant. I can't say any more about it other than ........

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[My copy of the Old and New Comment only namechecks him twice (II.21 & III.57). I'll grant you that in the first of those he specifically says "There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse," but he doesn't extend that viewpoint beyond the verse to the other 219 of the book. Nor did he ever waver in his claim that Aiwass wrote the book, not him.

Well actually you're missing it because he espouses Nietzschean concepts in 2:25 where he criticizes "the people" and false concepts of equality. He uses the phrase "Christians to the lions" here. That phrase becomes a reprise as he uses in later verse-commentaries to echo that sentiment e.g. 2:57 and 2:59. In fact 2:57 could be lifted from Nietzsche's Antichrist as could a lot of AC'S writings. Go to 3:3 on the new aeon and the destruction of Christian culture via the Great War. You also missed 3:18 comments on "the artificial protection of the unfit" and 3:52 and 3:53 in which Nietzchean slave morality is discussed. When I say Nietzschean this includes harsh critiques of Christianity.

In 2:52 he comments about vice and virtue and cowardice. In 2:33 he says that reason is like a woman if you listen to it you are lost. This echoes Nietzsche's "chauvinism" e.g. Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-" The Will to Power.

Ok I appreciate that you're criticising my logical expression and reductionism in defining A as B i.e. Crowley as Nietzchean I..e in the great span of the aeons these are merely two modern thinkers and nothing under the sun is original however, once again you're not appreciating the revolutionary impact of Nietzsche's work.

..... but yeah I get it, you appear to get off on being pedantic as stated by Mercurius. Y'know if someone calls you out on a flaw then they could be operating from a pov of ignorance but if two do it then there could be something in it.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

gerry456 wrote:When I say Nietzschean this includes harsh critiques of Christianity.

So, when you said "he does namecheck Nietzsche a fair bit," what you meant was not that he actually references Nietzsche but that he's regularly anti-Christian and occasionally chauvinist? OK, if that's what you and the alt-right hack are calling "pedantic", I'll take it. To me, clarifying that level of over-generalization is just the basic critical thinking necessary for rational discourse.

Ok I appreciate that you're criticising my logical expression and reductionism in defining A as B i.e. Crowley as Nietzchean I..e in the great span of the aeons these are merely two modern thinkers and nothing under the sun is original however, once again you're not appreciating the revolutionary impact of Nietzsche's work.

I very much appreciate the revolutionary impact of Nietzsche's work on Western Philosophy. I also appreciate that Crowley admired him and worked with many of the things he wrote. I don't, however, see any justification in painting the entirety of Crowley's literary output with that one brush. He was a multi-faceted personality and wrote and thought from a multitude of different viewpoints.

But, you know... continue seeing things through that tunnel if it serves you. What the thinker thinks, the prover proves.

gerry456 wrote:When I say Nietzschean this includes harsh critiques of Christianity.

So, when you said "he does namecheck Nietzsche a fair bit," what you meant was not that he actually references Nietzsche but that he's regularly anti-Christian and occasionally chauvinist? OK, if that's what you and the alt-right hack are calling "pedantic", I'll take it. To me, clarifying that level of over-generalization is just the basic critical thinking necessary for rational discourse.

Let's get to the crux of the matter which involves the OP. Was Crowley an admirer of Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism? Was Crowley a white supremacist? He made racist comments here and there but he made it clear that he didn't like Anglo Saxon culture. In the Confessions he rails against American southern states racist lynch mobs. I'd say his favourite places were Mexico and/or the Middle East.

More importantly, can a racist who wants apartheid or a sexist ,attain to their KACHGA and to further attainments? If not then why not?

Do I think that Liber Al is a white supremacist document? Well if the Law is for All then All are called to attempt to align with that Law. Black rights? White rights? Working class rights? Women's rights? Thou has no right but to do thy will ....................

Cp 2 ; 17. Hear me, ye people of sighing! The sorrows of pain and regret Are left to the dead and the dying, The folk that not know me as yet.

18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk. 19. Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us. 20. Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us.

As you can see, no particular race, class or gender specified.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

Avshalom Binyamin wrote:Not me. White supremacy is incompatible with "Every man and every woman is a star"

Ditto on the male supremacy.

Supremacy exists. Are you trying to deny that?

No, not at all. Supremacy exists. However, male supremacy does not exist (except for things like producing semen from your own body).

People are called to Nuit but many don't make it.

This can't be accurately distinguished by gender or race, though.

The question is, why is Thelema Eurocentric?

Is it? "Also the mantras and spells; the obeah and the wanga; the work of the wand and the work of the sword; these he shall learn and teach." Is this metaphorical, or was Crowley being instructed to learn and teach African-rooted Caribbean magick?

This comment is so reductive as to be nearly empty of meaning. One could equally well say Nietzsche was Schopenhauerian and mean just as little by it.

If you're an ignoramus yes but seeing as I'm assuming you've read the New Comment and the references to Nietzsche therein I wouldn't be bringing Schopenhauerian comparisons into this.[/quote]He also mentioned Oscar Wilde. I assume you wouldn't object to Crowley being called Wildean. But, then, he also mentioned Jesus...